|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 10:01:39 GMT -5
I noticed that in your debate with brother Jack you would constantly say things like "straw man" argument, and the like. You only did this when he made a claim that shook the foundation of the evolutionary theory. This is, I think is a cowardly escape to avoid the fact that evolution is self refuting.
So I ask you, since you wish to debate science outside of science by emplying philosophy (which is not possible as Dusty said, "you cannot prove a metaphysical being using natural processes" where I agree with this superficially but I disagree as you can use God's immanence to prove He exists - my conversion for example) show me the foundation of your claims on truth.
1) What exactly do you believe? 2) Where do you get your beliefs?
We can start here. Now, I am not debating science as that is evidently fruitless (eleven pages with no progress). Let us debate on these three levels...
a) Epystemology (pre-suppositions) b) Metaphysics c) Ethics
Are you up for it?
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Jul 30, 2006 10:34:16 GMT -5
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION. YOU COMBINE EVOLUTION, THE BIG BANG, AND ABIOTIC EVOLUTION TOGETHER TO CREATE A VIEWPOINT OF EVOLUTION THAT NO SCIENTIST HOLDS.
You commonly use the "argument" out-of-context whenever I show you a blatant error in the bible. Is it truly out of context? No. You just want it to be. And you're telling me that Larry has been copping out?
Hell beep no. Larry has never turned down an argument. He has argued with you all to the point that some of you avoid him like the plague.
I believe Larry has been shaking your beliefs, showing you the fallacies in your infallible book.
Learn what a straw man argument is.
Learn what evolution is.
Learn the distinction between evolution, the big bang, and the origin(sp?) of life.
It's useless to argue against a fool who doesn't know anything about the matter being argued. So clearly, you're going to have a difficult time about this, evan.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jul 30, 2006 10:37:38 GMT -5
What is a dual? Would you like to challenge me to a duel? Also check your spelling of epistemology. Check your definition of epistemology too ... because epistemology does not mean "presuppostions". Do not assume that I share your same motivations. I don't point out someone's informal fallacies (e.g. straw man arguments, poisoning the well, question begging epithets, false dilemmas, etc.) because they "refute" evolution. I point them out because they are flawed arguments. If you believe I am wrong when I identify formal and informal fallacies, then prove me wrong with a logical argument. Don't just cry foul and assume that I am the one trying to cowardly sidestep an argument. I refute your claims using logic and knowledge, can you say the same?
OK. I'll spell out my worldview for you. Give me some time.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 10:44:48 GMT -5
epystomology (literal spelling)
But to avoid further argument:
EpIstemology: The branch of philosophy that investigates the possibility, origins, nature, and extent of human knowledge.
In this case and context: you presupposition, or the origin of your interpretation of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jul 30, 2006 10:53:57 GMT -5
What do you mean that's the "literal" spelling of epistemology? Do you mean that's the Greek spelling? I don't speak Greek.
If you want to understand my epistemology, does that mean you've bought into relativism? Shouldn't epistemology be universal? Or do you assume that you have a better grasp of epistemology than I do?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 11:04:41 GMT -5
Not a better understanding, just different.
I am set upon the solid rock of scripture. Therefore, that is my first principle. The goal of this debate is not whether or not God exists, as I have said elsewhere, that is axiomatic. But rather which is more critically rational.
We hold totally opposite worldviews. Therefore one must be right, and one must be wrong as they cannot both be right.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jul 30, 2006 11:26:10 GMT -5
We hold totally opposite worldviews. Therefore one must be right, and one must be wrong as they cannot both be right. There you go again. False dilemma. It is quite possible that we are BOTH wrong. Even if you could prove that I am wrong, it would not prove that you are right.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 11:29:09 GMT -5
You are exactly right, which is why I am bound to prove my worldview right. You assume that I am ignorant to this.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 11:45:20 GMT -5
And please dont argue ad hominem (spelling check, and other meaningless things, I am not a good keyboardist).
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jul 30, 2006 11:48:15 GMT -5
You are exactly right, which is why I am bound to prove my worldview right. You assume that I am ignorant to this. No, evan, I don't assume you are ignorant about that false dilemma. I conclude that you are ignorant about false dilemmas. If you understood that we could both be wrong about our worldviews, then why do you claim: We hold totally opposite worldviews. Therefore one must be right, and one must be wrong as they cannot both be right. Our worldviews are not "totally opposite". E.g. we both believe that George W. Bush is currently president of the U.S.A., we both believe water is wet, we both believe that ice is cold, etc. In fact, it would be difficult to comprehend what it might mean if two worldviews were, in fact, totally opposite. A better question might be if our worldviews are mutually exclusive (i.e. one person cannot hold both worldviews at the same time). I would argue that most of our beliefs are NOT mutually exclusive (e.g. water is wet, ice is cold, etc.), though some of our beliefs are mutually exclusive (e.g. you believe one true god exists as the triune conjuction of the father, the son and the holy spirit and his truth is detailed in the King James Bible, while I do not believe that any gods exist). However, even where are beliefs are mutually exclusive, our beliefs are not exhaustive (i.e. even if you could prove god(s) exist(s), it wouldn't necessarily be the triune god of the KJB). For these reasons, you presented a false dilemma when you claimed: We hold totally opposite worldviews. Therefore one must be right, and one must be wrong as they cannot both be right. If you understood that our beliefs were not mutually exclusive and exhaustive, then you wouldn't have made the claim above. Therefore, I concluded that you were ignorant about the nature of false dilemmas, mutually exclusive claims and exhaustive claims.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 11:57:53 GMT -5
I do hold that Biblical monotheistic Christianity is indeed EXCLUSIVE. Which I am bound to also prove.
1) We are not debating whether water is wet, or Bush is president.
2) Again, the biblical Christian worldview does claim to be exclusive. Forgive me for ommiting that. But you to claim that you view is exclusive as well or you wold not be here to argue. You eclusively, absolutely beleive that there is no absolute or exclusive truth.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 12:05:25 GMT -5
[EDIT](deleted post) You still havent answered my initial two questions.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 0:54:22 GMT -5
evan, faith cannot be measured. in fact, the only evidence of faith, from a scientific stand point, is anthropological. people are more comfortable in groups, and people need someone or something. we are social creatures, and more over, we are creatures of habit. you say that your conversion is evidence that god exists, but i think that is simply a biological stimulus pertaining to your need to belong to a social order--to be classified.
i did study anthropology in college, as a minor, when i was double-majoring in 'religious studies' and 'political science.' however, i am too tired to present an actual anthropoligical case. so, instead of waiting until the new day i decided to post this to remind myself...
..i tend to be forgetful. peace.
in the meantime, you guys can either take off in the direction i am taking this...or take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 14:53:11 GMT -5
I never had a single incling towards changing my life. However one day I realized that God does indeed exist and has set up a standard in which I was seriously lacking. Sin had so consumed me that I went to church every week with my family and openly mocked God by playing a hypocrite and going the rest of the week in drunkeness, drugs, fornication, revelry, and all other iniquitous practices. Then I realized God had indeed appointed a day in which He will judge the world in roghteoussness by Jesus Christ. I realized that the Bible was true. I realized that excpet I repent I would perish. I realized God deserves my worship and obediance and trust. So I dedicated my life to Him and called out for forgiveness.
He changed my filthy heart and life, and now through the power and grace of God, and for His glory, live in holiness and reighteousness and trust in Him alone for everything. God is the one driving force of my life now. That is all the proof I need. Couple this with the infallible word of God, the testimony of creation, and the conscience and you have a irrefutable testimony to the power of God.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 15:57:59 GMT -5
"That is all the proof I need"
this is all the evidence YOU need. again, a relative answer, but you shortly replaced this with, "coupled this with the infallible word of god, the testimony of creation, and the conscience..." to try and reinforce your case. i admit that it was a nice try, but all of this is universal relativism. a bible that was supposedly divinely inspired, yet still written by fallible men, and a creation seen through the eyes of a christian, and a conscience that contains the emotion described as a soul---all this, is only what a christian witnesses, and is therefore relative to the concern that he believes it is universal.
i am not sure how clear this needs to be made.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 16:24:38 GMT -5
Have you ever written a letter? Did you or the pen write the letter? You did using the pen of course. The same way God used fallible men like a pen to write His infallible word. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
No, I have already refuted this claim in the evolution thread.
Conscience is much more than mere emotion. It has been called the judge in the courtroom of the mind. It only talks of morality and probably never says what you want it to say. You can manipulate emotions but you cannot manipulate your conscience, only ignore it.
I have already refuted you entire worldview dusty and you admitted it. You have no claim on truth and no Christian needs to fear you faulty objections.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 16:44:53 GMT -5
you did not refute any claim. you used words to protest a claim that i did not back down from. so, in the end, you are only going to claim yourself victorious by being a christian? so much for intelligent and objective debate. i gave you room to move, but you didn't even acknowledge the space.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 16:49:32 GMT -5
I need no room to move, as I dont squirm under your criticism. Please examine yourself and your sinful state. Please repent and trust Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 17:02:16 GMT -5
evan, why did you have to result to that? why did you have to depart from such an interesting and intelligent conversation, one that i even applauded you for, to insult my character. i have chosen to reject christ, and the last thing i need is someone like you telling me to repent.
i know my crimes against god. i know i am a sinner in the eyes of christians and in the eyes of your religion [god]. i know what is recorded in the bible, and if i am going to make a choice concerning my spiritual state...
...i will make it.
do not treat me as an ignorant and evil buffoon. i am capable of making my own decisions, and i do not need someone like you telling me how UNWORTHY I AM. so, we will either end the debate here in tatters, or we treat each other as human beings: equal, intelligent, and capable.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 17:59:02 GMT -5
You must make the choice indeed.
agreed and I apologize for that comment. But in order to be consistent I will tell you the truth and be totally transperant. I did not say it to offend, only to get you to think. Forgive me for the offece.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 18:13:04 GMT -5
haha. no offense, only unneccesary. you have heard me speak. you know i am highly educated, and you know that i know extremely knowledged in religion--particularly christianity. why do you need to repeat something like that to me when you know i have heard it countless times before. the only people you need say that to are the people you feel have not heard the gospel.
well, be assured, i have...
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 1, 2006 19:08:23 GMT -5
Well I guess Larry Ron wasnt up for a debate.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 1, 2006 19:11:58 GMT -5
he isn't addicted to blogging like we are evan. haha. i have not seen him post in days.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 2, 2006 11:41:55 GMT -5
I am here only because it is almost one hundred degrees outside and no one is out there to hear the word preached. Otherwise I would not be here either. But I do enjoy the discussion and pray that you see the truth.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 2, 2006 19:34:37 GMT -5
we all have different priorities, and certainly vastly different hobbies and likes/dislikes. the only indoor activities that i do on a regular basis is 'blog' and 'game.' unfortunately, i have SO MUCH time because i am still waiting on my job. haha. yi have cabin fever...you have no idea.
|
|